Sunday, February 03, 2013

Will there be a third temple?

Chafer DTS

Rule of Interpretation of the Scriptures:

2 ) Interpret what is implied by what is specifically taught in Scripture.

I do.

3 ) Interpret the Scriptures in it's historical context.

I do.

4 ) Check your findings by comparing it to Commentators of the Scriptures and consult Old Testement Hebrew and New Testement Greek Scholars.

I do.

1 ) Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative, or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.

Really? Taking the Bible literally where that’s at all possible is a rule of interpretation? Who invented that rule? I don’t remember signing that contract. But let’s play by your rule.

i) Jesus is literally a grape vine (Jn 15). After all, if it’s possible for the Son to become a man, it’s possible for the Son to become a grape vine.

ii) Jesus has a literal sword for a tongue (Rev 1:16). After all, Jesus has the power to turn his tongue into a sword.

iii) God will turn Christians into literal pillars (Rev 3:12). After all, it’s possible for God Almighty to turn a man into a marble column.

iv) Jesus is literally a lamb (Rev 5:6). After all, if Jesus can become a man, he can become a lamb.

v) An angel will take burning coals from the altar of a temple floating in the sky, and throw them over the edge, where they rain down on the earth (Rev 8:3-5). After all, it’s possible for the Omnipotent to make it happen exactly as described.

vi) God will create a giant woman and stick her somewhere in the sky. God will also create a physical dragon and stick him somewhere in the sky (Rev 12:1-3). After all, it’s possible for God Almighty to do that.

vii) God will create a physical dragon, whom he will shackle with a physical chain, and confine, under literal lock and seal, to a subterranean dungeon (Rev 20:1-3). After all, it’s possible for the Omnipotent to do that.

We don’t want to be like those skeptical, rationalistic amils.

Yet when it comes to passages like Ezek 40-48 and other passages concerning the millennial reign of Christ on the earth in OT prophecy Dr. Charles Hodge wrote…

One of your problems is that you rely on canned objections to amillennialism. Attacking Charles Hodge is not a substitute for refuting my arguments. I’m not Charles Hodge.

BTW, it makes no more sense to attack amillennialism in the person of Hodge than it does to attack dispensationalism in the person of Darby, Kelly, Tregelles, Bullinger, Scofield, or Chafer,  &c. You need to break out of your timewarp. If you’re going to attack amillennial writers, you need to focus your fire the most astute contemporary representatives, viz. Beale, Poythress, Robertson.

Moreover, amils aren’t limited to Calvinists. You have Lutheran commentators to deal with (e.g. Andrew Steinmann, Horace Hummel).

In otherwords, your own preconcieved theology dicates to you on when to follow the literal interpretation when if carried out contradicts your own subjective ideas. This is clearly seen that Dr. Charles Hodge…

Once again, you’re doing a bait-and-switch, where you accuse me of something, then quote Charles Hodge. You’re a lazy critic.

BTW, wasn’t Hodge postmil rather than amil?

I follow the literal interpretation based on the fact that Ezek is written in human language and is intended to be read and understood by the people of God as a means of communicating with us what he wants us to know in the same manner of which I read Genesis 1 to 2 on the account of creation. Simple human language as properly defined.

The parables of Jesus were written in human language and intended to be read and understood by God’s people. Does that mean you take the parable of the wise and foolish virgins literally?

The best way to settle this issue is through a verse by verse detailed exegesis of Ezek 40 to 48.

Actually, that’s not the best way. For you must make a preliminary decision regarding the genre. Interpreting particular verses about rooms in the temple doesn’t tell you how that description is meant to map onto a real-world setting.

 In Ezek. 40:5 for example he claims to have seen a temple are and yet you and Amillennialist tell us that Ezekial did not.

You’re making no effort to respond to my actual argument. You impute to me things I haven’t said.

Yes, he saw a temple. Notice that he didn’t see a future temple. He didn’t see a work in progress. He saw an extant temple.

 If he saw it then all of this has meaning of the information we are being told through out it. Basically you and Amillennialist are not telling anyone on what all these verses are teaching or telling us. Thus no real exegesis is being given.

You suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance. Amil commentators like Daniel Block and Horace Hummel have written detailed, verse-by-verse commentaries this section.

We are only told its symbolic of the church and nothing of the specific details even though it has alot of it.

Once again, you’re making assumptions about my position rather than bothering to study what I’ve actually said, much less rebut my arguments.

By the way, I am studied in church history. After all I have read and studied the early church father writings and also church history works such as HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 8 Volumes by Philp Schaff in book form. Steve do you hold to baptismal regeneration like several early church father who cited John 3 as teaching it ? Well if you dont why not since they taught it ? You see while they taught that error it is still incorrect as John 3 does not teach baptismal regeneration regardless of the fact that baptismal regeneration is the most early recorded view of John 3. We must allow the church or the people of God to formulate theologically mature conclusions on doctrines regardless of how long it takes in church history for it to happen as long as it is biblically based on proper exegesis.

You’re attacking an argument I never used. You’re a lazy critic.

First, the OT prophecy made no specific mention of the period of time between the first and 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. Old Testament prophecy had the fact that Jesus was to die on the cross and a future kingdom reign of Christ in Israel over the whole earth and that gentiles during it would be blessed along with Israel. Basically God's present work in the dispensation of the grace of God is not predicted in the Old Testament. God kept this knowledge of it to himself until it was revealed to the apostles , NT prophets and Paul based on Eph. 3:1-6. This is disclosed new information given to them that was hidden in the Old Testament.

i) Even if we grant your tendentious assertions for the sake of argument, you’re admitting that dispensationalists have to interpret OT prophecy in light of NT prophecy. Yet they castigate amils for doing the very same thing.

ii) But let’s play along with your argument. What does the NT say about the temple? What’s the timetable? Take this passage:

…who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thes 2:4).

Dispensationalists think that has reference to a third temple-Ezekiel’s “millennial” temple. Yet at the time of writing (c. 50 AD), the second temple was still intact. There was already an extant, functioning temple in Jerusalem. And it would remain so for another 20 years.

How would the Thessalonians be in any position to realize that Paul was actually referring to a third temple, a future temple, when the second temple was still a very present reality? (There are, of course, alternative identifications, viz. Beale, Green.)

 The premillennial position teaches that Satan is not presently binded at all but will be during the millennial reign of christ on the earth which starts after the second coming of Christ ( Matt. 25:31-34; Rev. 20:1-3 ) .

Tell me something I don’t already know.

 Binding and loosing is related to the preaching of the Gospel to the lost done by Peter and the apostles ( Matt. 16:18-19; Acts 2 ) . There is no binding of looseing of Satan in those words anywhere at all. It strictly speaking is the opening of the preaching of the Gospels to the Jews and then later on to the gentiles in the book of Acts.

It’s fallacious to interpret the binding/loosing of Satan in Rev 20 in terms of Mt 16.

Satan is very active in the world today. Satan blinds all the unregenerate to the Gospel and tempts Christians today to sin and uses false teachers to preach another gospel and so forth. Far from Satan being bounded on the cross Satan is VERY active. Did Total Depravity suddenly cease as a result of the cross ? I dont think so.

You’re raising stock objections I already dealt with. I’ve presented my interpretation of Rev 20:1-12. You’re a lazy critic who recites 3x5 cards rather than dealing with the actual state of the argument.

 The premillennial position holds that the temple will be build during the Millennial Kingdom reign of Christ on the earth and not during the church age.

Tell me something I don’t already know.

 Steve are you trying to use the " historical argument " by your statement " your own position in church history " ? If you are commiting a logical fallacy . I am sure you must know that.

Once again, instead of acquainting yourself with my actual position and supporting arguments, you burn a straw man.

Even so I like many of the early church fathers held to a millennial kingdom reign of Christ on the earth for 1,000 years in contrast to many of the Reformers who held to Amillennialism and in general historicalism. Steve the fact is the Old Testament when still being written at the time Ezek was written.

What a surprise.

 Daniel was aware of that book and of each other. Ezek did have Isa and Daniel and would therefore be away of a future reign of the Messiah on the earth. What a person would know is that when it was written that Ezek 40-48 was in the future in which the Messiah would be with them physically in Israel in the temple and performing animal sacrifices. They also know this temple had NOT YET been built at all.

Future in reference to whom? There wasn’t even a second temple at the time Ezekiel delivered chaps 40-48. Yet you’re leaping over a second temple, and imagining a third temple–as if Ezekiel’s contemporaries understood him to be referring to a third temple, long after the second temple had been leveled, even before a second temple had been built to replace Solomon’s temple. That defies the historical context. At the time of writing, the second temple lay in the future. You are postulating a future temple after a future temple!

Not unless there was errors regarding to it's measurements of which are stated in those chapters and the division of the land to the people.

There’s another option: errors regarding the dispensational interpretation.

Also based on history we see this temple stated in Ezek 40 to 48 has never been built at all.

So by your own admission, dispensationalists must abandon the historical context. The interpretation is massively confused, as you careen back and forth between the prospective viewpoint of 6C BC Jews and the retrospective viewpoint of 21C AD Christians.

No comments:

Post a Comment